Knowledge talk:Criticism/Archive 1

2938:, the current approach, which lists the traditional Christian doctrine first followed by a "Critical Analysis" section, makes sense. Omiting this criticism from the article, and e.g. listing views of critical scholars on this and every similar topic in articles on those scholars, would only serve to conceal rather than explain the existence of controversy. Likewise, intermingling critical opinion with the exposition of traditional views would only obscure both views from the reader. A similar problem exists in Judaism, where there are numerous articles on individual beliefs, rituals, and innovations whose criticism similarly belongs in the same article as the exposition but shouldn't be intermingled. I beleive separate sections are the right solution for these cases and they shouldn't be discouraged. Suggest care to avoid a single one-size-fits-all solution based on needs of one domain which may not apply to other areas of knowledge. Best, -- 1069:

is the case because seperating two related sentences by a few paragraphs hinders WP's two main peer-review procedures. One procedure is that people who are reading the article can correct mistakes, but only a minority read articles from start to finish. The majority are unlikely to read both of the contradicting statements if they are far apart, so the contradiction will not be obvious. The other procedure is that people check edits that appear on their watchlist. Again, this procedure often doesn't catch contradictions at all (since people just verify the change compared to their knowledge), and the "diff" only shows one paragraph above and below for context, so contradictions will often be found acceptable provided that the added sentence looks ok in isolation.

664:, would usually be stronger in Knowledge than in Knowledge's competitors (at least those encyclopedias that are built in a top-down mode of operation). Whether you favour a top-down "by expertise" way of making an encyclopedia, or wikipedia's open everyone-can-add-his-or-her-two-cents approach, the difference in approach might give also a different result in how content is distributed over pages. Note however that in the end results may be not so far from each other. It's not because Britannica -for instance- doesn't do "criticism" section titles that the end result is all that much of a difference. I compared 1696:"Criticism sections should not violate Article structures which can imply a view. These sections must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are." This needs to be beefed up. When a topic receives significant criticism, which is an equal or majority view, the article should give due weight to criticism; not relegate it to a separate article or separate paragraph. 1065:

Criticism section, which could contain criticisms about steering wheels, to ensure that I have read everything there is to read about steering wheels? That's bad data layout since the Criticisms section may contain zero related info, and should surely contain a low percentage at most of related info. Hypothetical example B: I want to contribute a criticism - where do I put it? In the section about that aspect of the topic ("Steering wheels") or in the "Criticism" section?

3102:

promoted to "guideline". Sometime it happens that it gets put back to proposal stage, or rejected, if enough editors join the fray and express their opposition (demonstrating the fact that the consensus, was not really wide enough.) This proposal was discussed for almost a year and did not reach consensus. It was then "demoted" to an essay, and just a week ago, as Francis explained, got opened again as a proposal, based on some new thinking about how to address this issue.

712:. Knowledge gives them a near infinite array of topics to protest against. It doesn't require a criticism section to draw those like flies, and it doesn't stay on the talk page -- it contaminates the article. Whether intended or not, criticism "how to" articles encourage this. The urge to criticize is so strong that anything besides a clear anti-criticism guideline simply encourages it. This article as currently written certainly does, whether that's the intention or not. 1537:, and that refusing to acknowledge this fact is a recipe for disaster. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need criticism sections because most people would make edits that are well-cited and respect NPOV, and all POV-pushers and spammers would be immediately reverted. But we don't live in that ideal world. To put my argument in rather crude terms, shit happens, and it's best to keep it all in one place rather than spread it over the entire article. 31: 1699:"Criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow. For example a section entitled "Early success" should not contain one paragraph describing the success of the topic and three paragraphs qualifying or denying that success. This is often why separate criticism sections are created." This seems to ignore due weight: what if the initial reception of a subject was overwhelmingly negative? 2930:), and also that it shouldn't be in a separate section (on grounds that this would be a troll magnet). One or the other of these statements must hold, they both can't hold at the same time. If a type of criticism should be in a separate article on a major topic where there's enough content and notability for separate articles, then it should be in a separate section of the same article when a minor topic is involved. 562:

this. They are already predisposed to criticize topics they feel negatively about. When they read guidelines favoring a criticism section, that only fuels this already incorrect notion. This contributes to articles which consist more of criticism than explanation of the topic. It contributes to edit wars with editors trying to cram in negative statements about topics they dislike under the rubric of "criticism".

1598:' analysis of the criticism situation is a sound one. Thus, I agree with him that criticism and anti-criticism must be quarantined, mainly to prevent the prose in the main article from deteriorating due to the chain of events mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Even if there were no trolls to instigate this degradation in article quality, I would still support the segregation of facts and opinions. -- 1814:. Both of these policies/guidelines clearly outline that putting criticism into a single section/article is a bad thing (I won't go into the reasons why as they are quite self explanatory). Should we try and create a guideline based on those bits with a little more verbose explanation why? As it stands, people are simply ignoring these bits and if you point them here you get ignored even more.- 2225:"not breaking flow" was specifically there, unless I accidentally deleted it. I do however remember explicitly moving that sentence into that section as I re-ordered things. Furthermore, I don't think that's the criteria. It's one of two, the other being that such "integration" neither hide nor overemphasize critical views beyond their due weight, verifiability, etc. 2719:

that. I'm not even sure the sentence even belongs, but some people feel that balance is only found through presenting pro and anti position statements. I don't find such presentations particularly Neutral, and prefer a more dispassionate description of what facts can be verified, with description of opinions in less of a "he said, she said" sort of style. --

2293: 2764:

criticism sections, while allowing it in certain situations where it really is the best way to present. The proposal takes the position that criticism sections are inherently non-NPOV-succeptable, and should therefore be used with serious care. Your comment, however, is helpful, as it identifies a place where we need to really clarify the approach. --

2084:

notability. But the article "feels too good". I would argue that this is somewhat POV, and sometimes a "chip on the shoulder" kind of attitude, but if it's really the case, then it seems to me that re-writing secitons to conform to NPOV is the solution, not a sloppy addition of criticism which distorts the flow and "encyclopedic style" so to speak.

2685:

think they should). However, the articles remain on the list of POV forks. Both the original proposal and the draft seem to argue that such separate articles should not exist. I cannot support any draft which takes this stance. I would prefer a proposal which makes the case that I laid out in the "Separate articles" section above. --

980:

encyclopedia to properly inform the reader about what is important to know about a subject, and magically excluding criticism from the sphere of what is 'important to know' is a grave disservice to the reader. If a subject is especially controversial, then not telling the reader about this controversy leaves them woefully uninformed.

840:

what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, ... One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

2120:. There are two sides to any story - pro and anti. :) (Just kidding, but it's a serious problem in modern discourse, and over-simplifying into pro/anti statements are unhelpful, and, I believe, not NPOV in the slightest. (Hmm. Maybe I should add that to Criticism secitons on CNN and Fox News pages... Naaaaah.) -- 1260:. That's my No. 1 strategy in most of the troll-gathering articles: throw out what isn't properly referenced to highly reliable sources. If all the unreferenced stuff is gathered in a criticism section, then the trolls have been nice, throw out the section. But then also you haven't got a criticism section any more. 603:

reporters during a press conference. They may feel not doing likewise is "rolling over" and spouting a "party line" viewpoint. However Knowledge is an encyclopedia. It's NOT a web-based news article, or an editorial page which mandates pro/con sections. We are encyclopedia writers, not investigative reporters.

788:

heavy-criticism verbiage tends to displace descriptive verbiage. Many articles are devoted primarily to criticizing the topic rather than explaining it. Readers go away knowing little about the topic other than it's controversial. In other words, a total failure of an encyclopedia's justification for existence.

708:

section or whether the criticism is smeared over the article. The problem isn't attracting trolls with a criticism section. Rather the problem is attracting ANYONE with strong feelings against the topic. Look at Usenet or discussion forums. There is no shortage of such people. Everyone feels strongly against

2737:

Wikipedians should use wisdom and engage in healthy article construction to formulate readable, verifiable, encyclopedic content", that is a good formulation, only to later on say "In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged". So which one is it? A guideline needs to

3126:

The problem, Smee, is that there are too many objections by too many editors about putting this in a guideline, and that is why it has not "made it" to guideline status. Christian, above, is saying that he want to re-write it in a way that may attract the necessary wide consensus needed for guideline

2933:

I agree with the author of the Christianity example that at least in some cases, including matters of religion, separate sections/articles are often more appropriate, and a separate section may be most appropriate. Parenthetical claims by critics would simply undermine the exposition of the principle

2880:

etc. In such cases, the editor's preferences are irrelevant. We're trying to propose an interpretive framework for applying NPOV, V, OR, and related bits to the specific case of criticism of a topic, as it keeps coming up again and again. If questions (and disputes) of how to handle it didn't keep

2718:

That phrase will not be in the draft if I have anything to say about it, at least not in that form. Possible alternative would be "all featured articles will not exclude any relevant, notable, verifiable criticism, however such criticism is subject to NPOV presentation guidelines," or something like

1328:

Then there is also the fact that some people (I have a certain user in mind, but I won't mention his name) go out and find tons of references that support their POV, and add a huge volume of (well-referenced) critical material into articles. How do we handle tons and tons of well-referenced criticism

1041:

the PURPOSE of the sections is to organize information into topics that are useful and easily understood by the user. if we are to remove criticism sections and spread the information throughout the article, then we should remove all sections and just have each article become one gigantic paragraph.

557:

The main purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe and explain the topic, not criticize it. That doesn't mean criticism is unwarranted, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Again, how do we know this? Look at any general encyclopedia. The lack of criticism in encyclopedias does not reflect a PRO

2736:

and it is most certainly superior to the current version, although still ambiguous and somewhat self-contradicting. The lead speaks of "While this guideline prefers integration of criticism, it should not be construed as prohibiting reasonable uses of Criticism sections or other articles. As always,

2684:

Christian et al, please read the section above entitled "Separate articles". There are people on both sides of the "Criticism of religion X" debate. On the one hand, these articles are periodically nominated for deletion but, on the other hand, they generally seem to survive such nominations (as I

1899:

is a POV problem which can only be fixed by moving it to a separate article. In addition many subjects have multiple articles (company and product etc..) with criticisms spread out over multiple places and the only way to reasonably monitor and track duplication it is to group together in one place.

1894:

link - there is no forking of views, the views match up in both articles. I'm not sure why this simple idea causes so many people such concern. When the criticism section of an article becomes too long and out of balance with the rest of the article (ie. the amount of criticism in an article is %50

1494:

that even doesn't deserve to be mentioned in an ancillary article). Millions of people are affected by Christianity, so any criticism of Christianity that isn't brought forward by a considerable fraction of the number of people affected by Christianity doesn't belong in the top article. It has to go

1466:

topics, each with their viable views included in the article. "Proven" in the sense of: Wikipedians learnt it by experience, I mean, today the answer to this issue is apparently less open than it used to be some time ago, learning from previous mistakes. The "quarantining" of criticism or trivia has

1152:

If such article becomes too long it should never be split along the lines of "criticism" in one sub-article and "praise" in another (that's an archetypal example of POV splitting). Instead, try splitting along "Reception of ... (Middle Ages and Renaissance)" and "Reception of ... (Enlightenment and

997:

After looking at it more, the central flaw in this proposal is that it assumes that criticism sections or articles will 'only' contain criticism (which is necessarily POV) and not a discussion of that criticism (criticism and responses, which can be NPOV). The former is unencyclopedic, the latter is

610:

There should be no hard-and-fast rules. Topics differ. But in general this guideline should be repeatedly stressed -- Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a forum for criticism, whether from editors or outside parties. Britannica, Encarta, World Book, etc. follow this guideline, and so should Knowledge

498:

Many persons that are notable enough to have an article in Knowledge are likely to have critics. Their views can be represented so long as the material is relevant to the subject's notability, is based on reputable sources, and is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to

3240:

Secondly, I think we need a really firm statement to the effect that criticisms must be cited to reliable, prominent sources. The problem pages I am thinking of have to do with marginal movements or concepts that can be easily criticized, but can be just as easily dimsissed or ignored. There is a

3058:

On the other hand, I think that if contributors like Christian think it would be worth while to make the effort nonetheless to streamline this into a guideline (which was restarted a week ago), such initiative should be supported, and then the "proposal" tag is adequate, at least as long as there's

2070:

on how to handle criticism. The current approach, which was arrived at by consensus has moved criticism into the various topical sections and integrated it in NPOV statements. This also includes praise, if it's relevant. The standards used are standard WP:NPOV, with notability, verifiability and

1946:

If an article says "X IS TRUE" and a separate article is created to say "X IS NOT TRUE but Y IS TRUE", then you have the serious risk of a POV fork. What the reader believes now depends on whether she reads the first article or the second article. If neither article mentions the other POV with in

1876:

However, creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork, per Knowledge:Content forking: "Knowledge articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each

1757:

has a different meaning than general criticism of a topic. Other encyclopedias have sections on literary criticism. They don't generally have sections criticizing non-artistic topics, e.g. automobiles. It is damaging to encourage editorial criticism in an encyclopedia. This isn't the editorial page

1068:

The second is about the contribution environment they create. I've repeatedly observed that sections titled "Criticism" attract very low quality contributions. I have a theory about why this is: it is easy to put a statement there without having to make that statement fit into the article. This

1037:

Denying a criticism or praise section is just as bad as denying a references or history section. wikipedia is a reference, and as such, it should be easy for a user to find information they are looking for. if a user wants to know history of X, the history section will give a list of major events

839:

explicitely states: "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. ... Debates are described, represented, and characterized, ... Background is provided on who believes

707:

Francis, if Jimbo wants to make criticism part-and-parcel of Knowledge that's his prerogative. However take my word for it -- even indirectly advocating criticism will hurt the credibility and ultimately the very legitimacy of Knowledge. It makes no difference whether there's a designated criticism

561:

A significant problem with this article is blurring two common definitions of criticism. In art, music and literature, the term means study, discussion, evaluation, and interpretation. In other contexts it means hostility or disagreement with the object of criticism. Many editors will misunderstand

3101:

Theres is no formal process, Smee. Someone starts a page, get other editors involved and if there is merit on the material, someone will promote to guideline, and if enough editors get involved and there are no major objections, a community consensus can be assumed. At that point the proposal gets

2333:

Hi Jossi. Many agree, and will be making an alternate proposal (the draft mentioned below) to better address things. However, there is a need for guidance around the handling of criticism specifically, regardless of tone. That's what is being attempted. The current proposal is not to my liking

2248:

While you have every right to revert the whole thing, I find it extremely offputting that you didn't just start editing. A revert is easy - I would have preferred to see this evolve, rather than bounce around. Your commentary above is helpful, and certainly I would have been ecstatic to have you

1985:

Put another way, every statement in Knowledge should be inarguably true. If there is controversy, then we should say things like "According to A, X is true" and "According to B, X is NOT true". Whether these statements are dealt in equal detail in the same article is an organizational issue that

1206:

I also absolutely agree that there should be no separate criticism articles that present only the criticisms. Rather, there should be articles detailing arguments for and against. I have personally worked two achieve NPOV on two large criticism articles by adding anti-criticisms. Finally, there is

1008:

I have to agree totally with Merzbow. Are there ways in which a "Criticism of X" article can represent a POV fork? Of course. Does this mean all such articles are POV forks? Absolutely not. And yet, troublingly, that seems to be the assumption that some are making -- if I'm reading correctly,

965:), should identical criticism be included in the Edward article (as a sort of disclaimer), or should a link to the controversial topic itself be sufficient for "general criticism,” while criticism that is specific to Edward be put into his own article? (eg, audience padding, show editing, etc...) 801:

have killed over 20 million people and damaged the environment. There are very strong and valid opinions against cars and for mass transit. However such criticism doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The Knowledge automobiles article doesn't have that -- yet. Other articles are highly critical, i.e.

721:

Britannica, World Book, Encarta, etc. don't shirk criticism because of their "top down" approach. Rather prominent criticism doesn't generally belong in a general encyclopedia. An enyclocopedia describes topics according to mainstream thought -- it doesn't critique, criticize or dissect. The other

409:

editors in addressing issues they encounter when editing articles. As it stands now I don't believe that editors will gain a better understanding on how to deal with criticism in articles. Given that this is probably one of the more contentious issues we are facing in WP, I would argue that unless

291:

Nice work. I rephrased some of what you wrote to distinguish between descriptions of criticism and criticism itself (Knowledge articles shouldn't criticise, they should describe criticism). I know your knowledge and practice of proper grammar is better than mine so please correct any errors I have

3236:

I see two problems with this page. First, the casual reader rapidly hits the two hypothetical policies which seem to derail a non-negligible number of people. I would suggest that, at the least, we integrate them into the body of the text. Making them stand out as bulleted points attracts th

2155:

came in to being. The only trace of that in the former proposal were the Jimbo quotes in the "See also" section. That's no good solution. On the contrary, the proposal should integrate the current WP:BLP approach, and preferably do away with the unprocessed quotes. Your changes didn't remedy that

1966:

In order for this to work, the main article MUST mention all major criticisms and provide a link to the Criticisms article. The criticisms must be mentioned in an NPOV way, giving appropriate weight to them. For example, the article on the Catholic church should not say "The heretical branch of

1724:

Only speaking generally, and thinking about Jossi's bullets, I think we need to approach this structure first with content following from it. That is, we don't need another rambling page unpacking NPOV, but something directly addressing a) what headlines are used, and b) what is appropriate below

602:

In addition to misunderstanding an encyclopedia's main purpose, the propensity to criticize in Knowledge articles may come from misplaced comparisons with other information sources. E.g, people see "60 Minutes" segments on a topic, or read newspaper pro/con articles, or hear hostile, questioning

553:

Knowledge is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It's not a newspaper editorial with pro/con columns, nor a discussion forum, nor a political debate with designated pro/con positions. Encyclopedias typically don't have criticism or analysis sections -- that is reserved for other works. Examine almost any article in

143:

People who are critical to Christianity may also against many other non-related ideas. You don't want to write an article where 95% of the words are used to say "He does not like capitalism, femminism, Christianity, mathematics, Nazism, salty food, Macintosh computers, witch hunting, cats, 1+1=2,

2278:

I also take slight offense when an hour's worth of work goes down the tubes because someone dislikes a few lines. I made a significant amount of improvements, and if you disagree then you should edit over previous editors and reword as you see fit. The page was absolutely terrible when I started

2079:

have criticism sections". Unfortunately, absent explicit policy either for or against criticism sections, or permitting either approach explicitly, it becomes a tedious back-and-forth which is itself a troll-fest. In fact, many POV disputes were resolved on the Baha'i Faith page by integrating

1999:

cry out for criticisms to be factored out into a separate article precisely so that they can be given adequate treatment without disrupting the flow of the main article. If the main article has subsidiary articles, then those subsidiary articles may or may not incorporate detailed discussion of

1956:

On the other hand, if an article describes a POV, phenomenon or institution called X in an NPOV way and that article acknowledges briefly that there are criticisms with a link to the criticisms article, then the risk of a POV fork is significantly reduced. Done this way, the "Criticisms of ..."

983:

Once we agree that criticism should be concluded, it is simply a matter of organizational logic how to structure it. If an article's criticism section becomes large enough, it should be split off into a subarticle by the same logic that any article section is split off when it becomes too large.

2815:

advocates for a preference of integrated praise/criticism, rather than "some editors" and "other editors" stuff. The point is that separate sections are inherently more non-NPOV, so they should be generally deprecated. Editors' style preferences are less relevant, because of the implicit NPOV

2763:

Ignore it for now, it was an early version that was pasted into /Draft1 and I haven't done any edits post-commentary from others, so it will change, including getting the whole thing less verbose and smaller. As to the perceived contradiction, the guideline indicates a preference for not using

2241:

Of course "reception" is a variant of criticism. It's critical reception. That's just obvious from the languge used in artistic review. It's also structurally a variant of the approach - having a separate section for commentary/POV. It is different, to be sure, but closely related, at least

2166:

the guy who revived this as a proposal several months ago had a particular liking for the "criticism" section in the Stravinsky article. We must reconsider whether that example still should get such a prominent place, e.g. I don't see why that was kept in the intro of the "Formatting criticism"

864:

There's a difference between editorial criticism and representing various points of view in an article. A newspaper article will often impartially represent various significant viewpoints on a topic. By contrast editorial criticism is reserved for the editorial page. If you interpret WP:NPOV as

2083:

One major concern I have is that such sections seem to be advocated from time to time by people who think a page is too "rosy", but who have no specific criticisms that they can articulate as being somehow insufficiently represented, and that also satisfy WP:NPOV, relevance, verifiability, and

1669:

Per SV's quote of Jimbo, "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms," here is a beginning list of statements in this article that need to be

1064:

I have found two problems with "Criticism" sections. The first is about data layout. Hypothetical example A: I'm reading the "Cars" article, which has many subsections. One is "Steering wheels", another is "Criticism". If I read the Steering wheels section, do I then have to also read the

606:

But isn't that itself a matter of opinion? Not really. We must only look at other similar references: Britannica, Encarta, World Book, etc. Is Knowledge bound by those conventions? No, but if we want Knowledge to likewise be a credible, unbiased, scholarly source, we should heavily weigh that.

183:

I don't think either proposals are doing any good here. Why does an NPOV article need a criticism section, when there's nothing or almost nothing to criticise about it? And even when there's someone who has some criticism about a certain topic, do we need to support extreme minority views just

2144:

the "Rationale" section was no longer in line with the content of the rest of the page, and thus needed rewriting and updating, and preferably compacting. What we got is more "rationale", everywhere, more diffuse, even more inconsistent internally, and even more bordering into philosophy-like

2087:

How can we move this discussion along to the point where we can articulate coherent policy? There are real articles with real disputes that need this discussion to conclude, at least into a guideline if not policy. We have Jimby Wales' statements cited above about his preference for article

1426:

you'd need several thousands (if not more) to get above the "tiny minority view" threshold. Note that the "Metropolitan Church of Art of Jesus the Conductor" itself holds a tiny minority view on Christianity. But it has a separate article, no need to mention it in the general article. A path

1104:

User B retaliates: "Certain people believe cars are good. Many others contend that they are bad; the pro-car faction often criticizes these by appealing to a number of controversial allegations made by pro-car think-tanks. However, critics of cars have conclusively demonstrated that, for the

2699:

What kind of rationale is one that says: that "all featured articles should contain criticism"? and that "The exceptions include concepts, terms, or objects such as a basketball, an alphabet, the letter Q, the color blue, helium, or tea; things about which nothing positive could be said."?

2373:

Actually the new draft will probably be a style guide thing, rather than a policy or guideline, as several of the things you cite do cover it. However specific arguments about working with Criticism sections vs. integrated criticism have caused several of us to seek some explicit guidance.

1685:

The lead of this article says "This guideline gives recommendations on how to write about criticism of a topic, which can be: - written up in separate sections in an article; - incorporated throughout the text." According to Jimbo's quote, it's preferable to be incorporated into the text.

2979:

Um, please read that section again. The proposal isn't trying to say that both are true, the proposal is saying "these are two extremes", the policy must reside somewhere between them. Also, this proposal is a bit out of date - a newer one (which I still need to get time to work on) is in

979:

This proposed guideline is not coherent in points. A 'criticism of X' article is NOT necessarily a POV fork. The only thing that the existence of a 'criticism of X' article is asserting is that there is enough notable criticism of X to warrant an article discussing it. It is the duty of an

3068:

Thanks for the clarification, Francis. I was not aware that it got recently put back as a proposal. I am not holding my breath, but surely look forward to Christian's effort. If the modifications are not substantial to warrant the status of proposal, we can demote it back to essay status.

3193:. My view is that this happens because of what I perceive as these editors' lack of trust that a simple ruleset can sustain the project in the long term. If one is to judge by the results (current version of Knowledge) I would argue that we are doing pretty well despite the challenges. 642:- "criticism" content does not make an exception to that requirement, that's something you'd need to be aware of. In that sense, contributors can't (and shouldn't) make difference whether the source providing the information is "criticising" or not, although differentiation regarding the 1581:. Policy and guideline pages give recommendations on what should and what shouldn't happen. That's what they do. Creating "troll magnet sections of random criticisms" is something that better shouldn't happen, so it is probably best to write that down on some policy or guideline page. -- 1333:

to add every single argument ever made by an atheist to the Christianity article - with references. I utterly dislike the idea that we should just wait until an equally zealous user on the other side takes the time to find an equally large volume of referenced arguments for his POV. --

787:

Allowing or even encouraging everyone adding their "two cents worth" of criticism creates multiple deleterious affects, including piling on (criticism attracting itself) and uneven coverage (some articles are saturated with criticism, others not). Another uneven coverage problem is the

680:

side for wikipedia, the article mentions Mesmer's involvement regarding Mozart's first opera (a topic not mentioned in Britannica). So, if making the balance (for this single article, which is not much of a base for comparison, but still) wikipedia's "Mesmer" article has slightly more

2789:

a certain amount of necessary ambiguity, because it's one of those "in most cases no, but occasionally yes under certain circumstances" situations. If we said "never a criticism section" the proposal will never be accepted, as there are editors who vastly prefer this approach.

3245:

page, you can add a criticism suggestion simply by saying "Many people argue that gravel is not edible." And fine, gravel isn't edible. But this leapfrogs the sociological question of whether anyone actually cares enough to refute a point, and if so, how they are doing it.

2102:

and its subpages. We need to work towards a guideline or policy that calls for a consistent method of presenting criticism throughout the site. Until we do this we will continue with the battles we currently have with trolls trying to spilt articles into 'pro vs anti'

2044:

In order to avoid getting the edit reverted, I think further discussion with other editors is advisable. You might put together a draft of the text that you want to change and post it here to see if anybody objects. I would do it but I don't have time this morning.

135:

Many groups who thinks otherwise are seeing Christianity their biggest enemy. A geologist may not agree with the Big Flood. However, it seems stupid to say "This guy does not believe in Noah's flood." in each geologist's article. It is a joke to write an article about

1718:

First, I agree with the essay tag and much of the complaints. This is not "inactive"--people want to talk about it--but this is very far from the page we need and isn't really very good. In fact, I'd almost suggest keeping the title but emptying it and starting

1707:

That's just a small starter list: the article needs to be tightened up, better explaining when a separate section or separate article is needed, discussing due weight, and emphasizing Jimbo's point that criticism should be woven into the text as appropriate.

1976:"The Criticisms of" article must also treat the Criticisms in an NPOV way. It should not say things like "The Catholic Church is wrong because it teaches X." It can and should say things like "Feminists criticize the Catholic Church because it teaches X." 1957:

article is just an organizational device that takes an article that is too long and factors out the detailed discussion of the Criticisms into a separate article so that the reader is allowed to choose whether or not she wishes to read that level of detail.

1910:

So anyone else care about this "contradiction" here? Are proposed wiki guidelines going to be that for summary style articles, EVERY section can be spun-out, EXCEPT criticism sections? So the only topic that CAN'T be covered in-depth is criticism?

2231:

I see your point about "philosophy blog", but NPOV and others are essentially statements of principle and philosophy. Perhaps I put too much in, but it wasn't to philosophize, as much as to re-centre the reader on the key guidelines. I'll re-think

1309:

That's my No. 1 strategy in most of the troll-gathering articles - throw out what isn't properly referenced to highly reliable sources. If all the unreferenced stuff is gathered in a criticism section, then the trolls have been nice, throw out the

2221:

Too long? Please help me understand why? Please help me trim it down? Reverting doesn't actually solve the problem, especially when you revert to a dead state that was also going no where. This is (was) a work in progress, and it had a ways to

165:

One could argue that NPOV requires any lengthy article on a person or major concept to include a section criticizing that concept or person's efforts or actions, as most neutrally toned articles include mostly positive information. For example,

1852:

I agree, but I would also say it's very difficult, sometimes, to think of an elegant way to integrate criticism. I suppose we could have sections that simply didn't use the word criticism. Would that help, or is that merely a bandaid solution?

131:

OK, there are thousands of groups who do not like Christianity one way or another. Most of them share some similar ideas, such as "There shall be more than one Gods." Are we going to duplicate the same words over and over in multiple articles?

869:

article has no major criticism section, despite hundreds of millions of people being opposed to it. Do we want to explicitly advocate or even require criticism sections? It seems totally at odds with the style and purpose of an encyclopedia.

611:-- it's an encyclopedia. Whenever WikiCriticism is founded, then you can criticize and analyze to your heart's content. Until then the focus should stay purely encyclopedic, which means documenting the topic, not criticizing or analyzing it. 1889:

from the point of view advocated in the main article. If the criticism article is being created because the criticism section in the main article is too long, that is perfectly acceptable and commonly done. You have a summary section with a

2217:

Wow. I'm very unhappy about this, and I have a very different initial impression, but then I'm obviously attached to where I was going. I'll certainly consider all of this and give it a day or two to simmer. A couple of points however:

1368:

above, maybe take the time to read it thoroughly. You say "unless it explicitly states that any unreferenced criticism (or advocacy) can be deleted out of hand with no explanation, and should not be added back until references are found":

2132:

Sorry, Christian, this seems to be going nowhere, as far as I can see, and it pains me to say that. The former proposal-converted-to-essay had many flaws, thus far the recent changes imho only amplified those flaws. And added some new:

1947:

an NPOV fashion with appropriate weight, then the reader can only get an approximation of reality by reading both articles with the burden of NPOV and equal weight now being borne by the reader. This is unencyclopedic and unacceptable.

1404:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Knowledge (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or

987:

Furthermore, 'Criticism of X' articles can easily maintain NPOV, and well-written ones do their utmost to do so. A POV fork article by definition pushes a certain POV. A well-constructed 'Criticism of X' article does NOT push a POV. -

2000:

criticism within the subsidiary article. Or, the criticism of the subsidiary topic could also be factored into yet another criticism article. It depends primarily on whether there is enough information to warrant a separate article.

2395:

I look forward to the new style guide draft. As for the specific arguments, I have seen these as well, and all I can say in these situations is "go and re-read WP:NPOV", and if the article is about a living person, "go and re-read

1482:: maybe not necessary to study that guideline in detail, just these two points: 30kb is a maximum for ordinary articles. The top high profile articles can maybe go up to 60kb. The other point is: ask yourself the question: what is 1928:. I agree with Stbalbach and Jason C.K. that articles of criticisms need not be POV forks. Although some articles of criticisms might be POV forks, that is not an inherent characteristic of separate articles on criticisms. 940:. We do. Because we do, we then have an obligation to talk about how to do it in an organized, appropriate way that presents the range of views without obscuring the subject or letting controversy drown exposition. Best, -- 1042:

that way there is no "TROLL MAGNET" for those who have criticsms; no "HISTORY BUFF MAGNET" for those who have historical data, and no "REFERENCE MAGNET" for those who try to ensure that wikipedia is properly referenced.--

1109:

In brief, you end up with a string of sentences where each contradicts the previous one. Side A says this. But side B says this. But side A says that. But side B... ad nauseaum. That is unprofessional and hard to follow.

2841:

We cannot police (and should not attempt to do that either) how an article is constructed. Editors' common sense and the framework of NPOV, V, and OR is what needs to be asserted. The rest is just editor's preferences.

1161:

In fact the current wording of the proposal is still too lenient towards separate criticism sections in an article. That is because most of this proposal was written before the mailing list discussion now quoted in the

583:

Criticism can create biased and uneven coverage. Some topics people feel strongly about will have prominent criticism, others will not. This detracts from the detached, scholarly impartiality vital to an encyclopedia.

229:

Change vote to neutral. I've just gone over it again, and have made more changes. I think it reads better now, but someone else should read it again I feel. Also, the more I read it, the more the article reads like a

374:

l inclusions in "reception history"/"in popular culture" type of sections. But is (e.g.) its reception history not far more important than whether or not it was written by Bach? And would the sections discussing the

517:

Articles about ideologies, beliefs, or policies warrant criticism, whereas a section of criticisms of an individual is almost certain to result in contention. For example, to have a criticism section in the article

2088:

integration. We have what feels to me like an overall trend away from criticism articles (though it may just be hopefulness. :) Nevertheless, I feel we need to move forward on this point adn come to resolution.--

1038:

for X. if a user wants to know financials of X, the financials section will organize financial data. and the the user wants to learn about the CRITICISM, then the criticism section well organize that information.

2651:

where he notes that there are no conflicting arguments in peer-reviewed articles on the substance of human-induced climate change; yet slightly more than half of articles in the popular press include criticism of

932:, the NPOV policy requires listing major points of view, some of which say that the whole thing is wrong or a bad idea. Most encyclopeidias wouldn't publish the views of creationists in an article on Evolution or 2934:

views. Since critical organizations often criticize large numbers of topics, the logical method of organizing an article is by topic, not by group. Thus (to continue the Christianity example), in the article on

2185:

Really inappropriate ways of putting things, e.g. "A variant of a Criticism section can be a "reception" section"... No, a "reception" section is not a *variant* of a Criticism section, really, wrong approach.

1689:

What does this sentence mean? "The exceptions include concepts, terms, or objects such as a basketball, an alphabet, the letter Q, the color blue, helium, or tea; things about which nothing positive could be

1090:

a criticism section end up having poor quality critical edits made all over them. There is also a tendency to escalate arguments according to the following pattern (using an article about cars as an example):

1702:

This article is unclear and contradictory. The statement "Overview: Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own wikipedia article" is contradicted by earlier

777:

The problem is exactly as you describe: on Knowledge, everyone can add "their two cents worth." The already ingrained tendency to criticize is only exacerbated by a "how to" article with no other cautionary

1101:

User A edits further: "Most people believe cars are good. Some claim that they are bad, but these people ignore all the evidence provided by several respected think-tanks for the positive benefits of cars."

2948:

I concur. We cannot create a one size fit all, and we should not attempt to create "rules and regulations" for criticism and controversial material when we have strong enough framework already in place in

2540:

It is unfortunate you are making personal remarks instead of addressing the issue at hand. I never said it was recommended in general, I said that I believe it is a good idea. Thus your response is both a

2162:

for criticism integrated throughout an article, the prerequisite is that the criticism shouldn't break the flow of the narrative of an article. That was in the former version, I don't see it in the new

2881:

arising, I would agree that the above listed policies would suffice. But we have edit wars and revert wars and bitching and complaining and POV pushing, so we're trying to find a smoother process. --

622:

problem, I'm sure it will figure prominently in their negative advertising. We don't want to provide them further ammunition by advocating criticism, which generally doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

760:, etc. imply alternate viewpoints. THAT type of topic is probably what the "all viewpoints" wording of NPOV was intended for. By contrast the majority of topics may have associated controversy (e.g, 2098:

I agree with your statement 100%. I am constantly working on articles where arguments for criticism sections are used such as 'but it used to have one' and 'I can't find the criticism now' (such as

768:) but that by itself doesn't justify criticism in an encyclopedia article. In those two cases Knowledge (so far) has done the right thing -- no criticism. However that is increasingly not the case. 2279:

editing, and now it's just as bad. The wording is unclear and excessive. The formatting makes it difficult to follow. Discussing every minor edit in detail would be ridiculous, and doesn't follow

1556:

Most people have a knee-jerk reaction to any removal of content and demand that you explain the removal rather than trying to explain why the text should be kept. Hence "true until proven false".

1173:

it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.

2145:

descriptions that have few or no bearing on the content of the page. Knowledge guideline pages should avoid to turn into some sort of philosophy blog, and that's what is starting to happen here.

1013:

are even suggesting that bots or Google searches could be used to automatically find all such "POV forks", without considering that -- again -- simply focusing on a particular aspect of a topic

1762:. Other articles have gigantic criticism sections, often outweighing the article itself. This results in lack of uniformity, which hurts Knowledge quality and credibility as a reference work. 2351:

policies already cover the bases. Additional information is available in the MOF. Do we really need yet-another-guideline? I don't think so. Maybe your new draft would convince me otherwise.

2235:

Your view is that the rationale needed compacting. I disagree. I thought it had too little meat to be meaningful. Again, I'll re-consider in light of other guidelines and policy documents.

170:

contains all sorts of information about Stravinsky's relatively succesful career, such as his credentials, most inherently positive. Thus balance requires an opposing view or opposing views.

307:"Reception" is an interesting topic touched by this guideline. Maybe should be somewhat elaborated. Don't know yet how - so, for the time being I just note down some things I'm thinking of: 1283:

Instead, try splitting along "Reception of ... (Middle Ages and Renaissance)" and "Reception of ... (Enlightenment and Modern Era)" or whatever is suitable for the subject being described.

405:

I read the proposed guideline with interest and at first glance my comment is that ... I am more confused than before I started reading it. A guideline should be written in a manner that

522:

is encyclopedic, but a critique of communism on the article of each individual communist figure is not. The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject, not their critics.

1319:

work unless it explicitly states that any unreferenced criticism (or advocacy) can be deleted out of hand with no explanation, and should not be added back until references are found.

899:

are included in articles; either criticism or praise. Whatever is most notable should be included. There's no need to tell editors "you must dig up some criticism to include in the

587:

The urge to criticize in Knowledge articles is so overwhelming that entire articles devoted purely to criticism of the topics have been created. E.g, Encarta has a lengthy article on

1418:

Yeah, that's of course a "high profile" article. I'm involved in some of these too. In such case the "tiny minority view" threshold is higher than for the less general articles. For

1674:

Nowhere does this page mention due weight, minority and majority views. If criticism of a topic is a significant or majority view, that should be reflected. The article points to

454:

The wording is confusing and does not provide any useful or clear information about it. It says you can do this, or that, or this other thing. IMO this is a superfluos guideline.

222: 3087:

What is involved in a proposal process? Is there a vote or discussion of sorts, in the manner of an AFD kind of thing? Certainly looks like an interesting set of guidelines.

1540:

Take the "true until proven false" attitude that I mentioned. Of course it's not supported by official policy, but most people do it anyway. Here's a recent example: In the

1967:

Christianity rejects transubstantiation." However, it can give less weight to ideas like the "Jesus married Mary Magdalene" theory or even decide not to mention it at all.

685:

characteristics for this person than Britannica. In short, (1) Knowledge can't avoid critical topics being listed; (2) there's no proof that a more adequate description of

2641:

There's some editorializing in the Draft that seems a bit much. Also, I think that the point should be made that not every argument has two equal sides. (I'm thinking of

2192:

So I'm going to revert (again), and would like to ask you to limit yourself to following techniques (you're of course free to do something with these suggestions or not):

811:

Editorial criticism is a poisonous toxin to the scholarly impartiality and credibility of an encyclopedia and will ultimately prove lethal to the project if not resisted.

580:. These Knowledge articles correctly focus on those topics, not having significant criticism sections. Unfortunately many Knowledge articles are saturated with criticism. 383:

guideline? If they do, the actual description of BWV565 is in its own article simply dwarfed by more than three quarters of criticism/reception history. But then, is that

2249:

collaborating on making this worthy. Having said that, I put some effort into this, so I'm ego-bound to it, so take this whole point with the relevant grain of salt. :)

1444: 1419: 1770:

to justify this. That is not the intent of NPOV. This is a creeping problem like a cancer that will infiltrate and damage Knowledge unless something is done about it.

1517:

the high-profile ones. For the high-profile ones step-by-step finetuning is often best. You'll see that that is the best approach to get people start cooperating. --

961:

has "general" criticism (e.g. skeptics say they are either deluded or frauds, using cold/hot reading, etc.) In related or sub-articles for individual mediums (like

591:, but there's no criticism section. By contrast Knowledge has a criticism section pointing to yet another entire article criticizing communism. Often the criticism 1180:

proposal. I wouldn't dream of making this proposal a guideline before the "troll magnet section" argument is properly included in the body of the proposal text. --

698:

discussion, which touches on some topics mentioned by you too. Maybe worth while to have a look there, or at least at the quotes I copied from that discussion. --

2663:

Also, I think that a "Criticism" section is really only warranted if criticism is as notable, and sourceable, as any other section in the article. References to

3001:

This article has been in a proposal state state since March 2006. As it stands it has not managed to gain the support of the community to become a guideline.

1693:

This contradicts Jimbo's statement: "No article should feature criticism about its topic, as those criticisms are always more appropriate at another location."

1270:, it should be re-baptized to something else than "Criticism of ..." and no, article names starting with "Criticism and anti-criticism of ... " doesn't work. 2894:

find ways around these. "Hecha la ley, hecha la trampa", we say in Spanish. ("Make a law, and you have made a way to break it"). Instruction creep, maybe?

3053:("The guidelines are perhaps adequate ... " - "Indeed"), which made me stop at the time to rework the proposal enough to make it acceptable as guideline. 835:

If we're to follow WP:NPOV and the criticism is part of a significant viewpoint, then not only does it belong in wikipedia, it's required. Why? Because

3208: 2469:

Afaik there's no such rule, nor even advise in that sense. There's only a recommendation to keep *discussions* on guidelines in a single place (hence

1381:). As far as I know there is no policy or guideline stating "true until proven false". That would be misleading. Note also that the criteria for the 2926:

In it's current form, this proposal says simultaneously that in a number of cases criticism shouldn't be in the main article (the example given is

387:

for compositions with such importance (one would say "part of the collective unconscious"), where so little is known about their history of origin?

614:

To do otherwise damages the scholarly impartiality, usefulness and ultimately the very legitimacy of the encyclopedia. Knowledge is already under

2811:

I appreciate that you're going at the draft, Jossi, but I actually think that you're watering it down and making it more ambiguous. This draft

2252:

I think I will use a draft page. That's a good idea. It's just that this page was dead, so it seemed alright to draft right there. My bad.

1315:

Yeah, right, and be reverted within minutes by inclusionists who insist on a "true until proven false" policy. This guideline of yours would

1290:

section there is some detail about "Making separate "reception history" articles " Please follow these recommendations (not forgetting the *

558:

position, it's simply not an encyclopedia's purpose. Guidelines should certainly not require or even encourage including criticism sections.

348:"Reception" topics are often very dangerous to become an endless list of Trivia. For recent talks regarding trivia see (just naming a few): 126:... criticisms of Christianity do not belong in the article on Christianity, but in the articles of Christian-critical groups and concepts. 111:

These are two contradicting theories. Theory 1: Every article shall criticize itself. Theory 2: Let other articles practice criticism. --

572:

Simply documenting the topic without criticism DOES NOT equate to a pro position -- EVEN if that topic is repulsive to many people. E.g,

1197:

becomes a troll magnet. Instead of having a section with random criticisms, you'll find random critical paragraphs all over the article.

2890:

I know that, Christian. But we need to be careful not to try to respond to POV warriors with yet-another-guideline. POV warriors will

66: 1113:

It is much better to isolate all arguments for and against in their own section - or, if they get too long, in their own article. --

830:

There are very strong and valid opinions against cars and for mass transit. However such criticism doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

414:

editors with decisions about how to treat criticism in articles, we should be better off relaying on the current content policies of

3174: 2528: 2486: 2440:

You should keep proposals on a single page, it makes for easier comparison (through diffs) and keeps improvements in the same spot.

490:

What would be really useful, is to provide a guideline on how to treat criticism as it pertains to its notability. For example, see

2876:

This is simply not true, Jossi. We all have to police wikipedia - that's why there are comprehensive guidelines and policies like

1544:

article, there was a criticism section that was not only unreferenced, but also POV and criticized the wrong thing (as I explained

1533:

and I absolutely support all the policies you have quoted. I have read and understood them very well. However, my argument is that

1454:

as an example - the criticisms go both ways of course). But the point is that "quarantining" or "sectioning off" or "grouping" the

1207:

the problem of criticism articles that are much, much longer than their parent articles. How do you propose to integrate those? --

920:

policy does make it different from other encyclopedias and will sometimes result in different applications. In articles like, say,

1422:

a handful of people sharing an opinion is a non-negligible view (you're already outnumbering the "adherents" of this Church). For

903:

article!" if there isn't really any criticism to speak of in popular opinion. On articles where there is notable criticism, like

599:

is created to give them a platform. At least it avoids total ruination of the main article, but it still illustrates the problem.

2430:

for evaluation, editing, maturation, and general fixing. No changes yet, but I'll be editing it over the next few days or so. --

1921: 1034:

Agreed as well. Reading that some editors discourage criticism sections was one of the worst things i've ever read on wikipedia.

802:

uneven coverage, and typically shaped by the changing winds of current sentiment. Exactly what you don't want in an encyclopedia.

668:

article in Knowledge and in the printed Britannica not so long ago. Both are about 50% criticism of Mesmer's "animal magnetism",

234:. I think there must have been (and remain) critics of Stravinsky's work who should be given greater voice for the sake of NPOV. 1682:

neither seem to adequately explore the issue of due weight and balance with respect to minority and majority views of criticism.

2935: 2470: 2314:

I would like to express my disagreement with this proposal. (a) it is too verbose; (b) pertinent aspect are already covered in

1758:

of a newspaper. Our main task is to simply describe the topic. For some controversial topics, this is handled quite well, e.g,

1450:

You get the idea? I mean, there's a network of related articles. Some of these are loaden with criticism on Christianity (take

1145:

If the sub-article contains both "criticism" and the opposite of criticism, the title of the article is badly chosen (at least

653: 1835: 1744:

As discussed elsewhere, the section may be appropriate in certain situations: film, literature, works of art come to mind.

1513:: Above I stressed it is allowed to throw out certain stuff. But best to avoid riding a horse and carriage through articles, 1451: 1440: 1137:

Knowledge articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.

957:

How should criticism of a topic be included in sub-articles or related articles of that topic? For instance, the topic of

569:-- the Britannica and Encarta entries have essentially no criticism (Britannica does have a neutral "assessment" section). 2238:

You could be right about moving this to a style guide. I can totally see that working, but I want to think more about it.

1193:

I absolutely agree that criticism sections are troll magnets. But my argument is that, in the absence of such a section,

2080:

criticism into verifiable statements of fact that neither "side" had a problem with, leaving impressions to the reader.

1436: 1675: 998:

certainly not. Based on this flawed assumption, criticism sections are disparaged and criticism articles disallowed. -

2032: 1510: 749: 722:

encyclopedias are perfectly capable of incorporating criticism as a standard feature, but they're smart enough not to.

632:

Hi Joema, I've read your criticism when you posted it first some weeks ago, and re-read when you updated it recently.

2985: 2981: 2882: 2817: 2791: 2765: 2733: 2720: 2620: 2431: 2427: 2375: 2335: 2258: 2121: 2089: 1386: 1385:

to which references can be made are fairly high. So making a reference to an advocacy website, would not comply to

1361: 643: 38: 3242: 1838:) (see above) also agrees. I'm not up to writing it, but they are POV magnets, and Jimbo has discouraged them. 1131: 1010: 753: 281:

Performed some rewritings of the proposal. Hope it helps. But is still not "final" for the proposal I suppose. --

1738: 1273:

criticism articles that are much, much longer than their parent articles. How do you propose to integrate those?

1329:

that overshadows the main body of the article? It would certainly be possible, for example, for an opponent of

1076: 565:

Even regarding art, literature and music, criticism should generally be restrained in an encyclopedia. E.g, Re

47: 17: 2741:

editors with in their editing endeavor, rather than confuse the hell out of them with ambiguous formulations.

2067: 2245:

I'm fine with ditching examples and re-conceiving them entirely. This was intended to be a work in progress.

1645:

Not inactive, but not a guideline either. This page needs to be tagged either as a proposal, or as an essay.

2027:

So, no one ever disputed Stbalbach's comments, you are not disputing me...should one of us be bold and edit

1654: 1567:

happen, and never will, unless the administration gets some teeth and starts seriously enforcing policy. --

1473: 1370: 1365: 1356: 1351: 1257: 1239: 639: 536: 511: 499:

side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate voice to critics as you could be

475: 435: 3116:

Thank you for the explanation. I think that it could use some work, but could make for a good guideline.

250: 2228:

Perhaps I'm not understanding teh purpose of guidelines. I'll take your advice and examine BLP and others

1843: 1479: 3247: 3212: 1072:

I think these are fundamental problems, and so I recommend that "Criticism" sections be advised against.

3181: 3060: 3019: 2587: 2532: 2490: 2204: 1996: 1582: 1518: 1432: 1295: 1181: 1047: 1022: 958: 757: 699: 392: 352: 332: 282: 249:.) We don't need to mention in every composer's article that some people might not care for his stuff. 2242:

structurally. Please explain why this is "inappropriate", as opposed to something you just don't like.

328: 2667:

are appropriate. Too often we see editors shoe-horning in individual commentators under the banner of

1885:"POV forks" (usually). It would only be a POV fork if the criticism article advocated a point of view 156:

Thanks for commenting. What would be a better wording? You obviously have ideas about where criticism

1925: 1389:

in most cases, in which case a statement and its reference to an unreliable source can be thrown out

966: 672:

being listed in both as one of the "official" critics. Neither had a "criticism" section, but on the

615: 3117: 3088: 3059:

talk and initiative, and things are advancing in the right direction (which I think is the case). --

865:

criticism sections are required, then a great many (maybe most) WP articles are deficient. E.g, the

731:

Obvious exceptions are art, music and literature where the term "criticism" has a different meaning.

3050: 2159:

the former proposal's structure wasn't too clear maybe, but I see an even less clear structure now.

2028: 1578: 1545: 1506: 1287: 1177: 1163: 1098:

User B edits it to say "Some people believe that cars are good, but others recognize they are bad".

741: 380: 160:

belong, and the point of all this is to make those possibly common-sense ideas explicit guidelines.

1937:

Here's my opinion about the controversy about whether or not to have separate criticism articles).

843:

The reasoning in this proposed policy/guideline is flawed; it is in direct conflict with WP:NPOV.

2676: 2647: 2554: 2499: 2478: 2474: 2441: 2297: 1829: 1754: 1490:

to go to a subsidiary article, or a subsidiary of a subsidiary (if noteworthy at all, i.e. not a

1142:"Criticism" is a stance, so grouping criticism in a separate article is by definition a POV fork. 844: 573: 104: 2178:

aspect is indeed fully covered by content policies (like NPOV, WP:V,...); the MoS aspect should

2498:

I never said there was any such rule, I was making a request that I believe to be a good idea.

241:

I don't think that there is a respectable view that he was a bad composer. (Some people don't

2939: 2686: 2046: 2019: 1839: 1745: 1709: 1626: 941: 669: 184:

because they're the only ones complaining? I also agree with Toytoy, how should "Criticism of

103:

I don't understand. #2 seems to contradict #1, and I have a hard time understanding #2. --

2117: 1043: 491: 342: 316: 212:

Okay, what's the opposite of these two bad policies? Apparently it would make one good one.

205: 3250: 3215: 3202: 3184: 3168: 3136: 3120: 3111: 3091: 3078: 3063: 3031: 2988: 2974: 2942: 2903: 2885: 2851: 2820: 2794: 2768: 2750: 2723: 2712: 2689: 2679: 2623: 2590: 2577: 2535: 2522: 2493: 2464: 2434: 2409: 2378: 2360: 2338: 2327: 2302: 2261: 2207: 2124: 2107: 2092: 2049: 2039: 2022: 1915: 1904: 1859: 1847: 1818: 1793: 1774: 1748: 1712: 1658: 1638: 1629: 1619: 1602: 1585: 1571: 1521: 1462:) is a stratagem that in the end has proven to be less successful than grouping on lots of 1338: 1298: 1226: 1211: 1184: 1149:), and should be changed to "Reception of ..." or something in that vein (depends on case). 1117: 1051: 1025: 1002: 992: 969: 944: 911: 874: 847: 815: 702: 626: 540: 479: 449: 439: 395: 335: 296: 285: 271: 3198: 3164: 3156: 3132: 3107: 3074: 3027: 2970: 2899: 2847: 2746: 2708: 2405: 2356: 2323: 2199:

and/or use a .../Temp or .../Draft page if you want to write a different kind of proposal.

2099: 2036: 1912: 1650: 1476:(this is something one needs to have in ones fingertips for the top high profile articles) 933: 745: 694:

Note that in the "see also" section of the guideline proposal I added a link to a current

566: 532: 471: 431: 264: 167: 1288:

Knowledge:Criticism#Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history)

140:

and keeps telling readers bad things about cars, ships, airplanes, spacecrafts and feet.

1350:

There is no "true until proven false" policy at Knowledge. On the contrary, the policy (

3189:

Very funny indeed. Yes, there are some editors that believe that the the project needs

2950: 2877: 2672: 2664: 2653: 2348: 2315: 2280: 2071:

relevance being the keys. Arguments are being presented on this talk page that "Well,

1901: 1807: 1790: 1763: 1616: 1595: 1568: 1541: 1398: 1335: 1223: 1208: 1114: 917: 908: 904: 892: 836: 503:, and if the criticism represents a tiny-minority view, it has no place in the article. 500: 459: 415: 2334:

either, but was reverted. Peek back later when the draft has been worked on a bit. --

91:? Personally, I think NPOV is more or less a lousy joke. Now you can criticize me. -- 2962: 2397: 2344: 2284: 2149: 2104: 1854: 1825: 1815: 1811: 1767: 1735: 1635: 1408:

Let the one wanting to add something to Knowledge gather the "evidence" (that is the

761: 577: 463: 446: 423: 293: 268: 260: 213: 171: 1496: 148:, anyone who has more than two vowels in his/her name, his mother's pasta ... ." -- 2958: 2927: 2072: 1686:

Situations where it is preferable to write a separate article should be delineated.

1428: 1423: 1330: 999: 989: 937: 929: 765: 665: 507: 331:, which calls for further improvement of the "Tacitus"/"Tacitean studies" split. -- 193: 144:

paleontology, child abusing, blood transfusion, fossil fuel, antibiotics, farmers,

3018:

This article should be closed as "rejected", or converted to an essay. No need to

2675:

for some examples in both directions.) This should not fly under "Undue weight".

510:

regarding the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on

2954: 2668: 2619:

Guys, I did it, so can we just stop this and actually discuss content please? --

1167: 1073: 962: 925: 798: 455: 419: 361: 357: 201: 149: 112: 92: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3194: 3190: 3160: 3128: 3103: 3070: 3023: 2966: 2895: 2843: 2742: 2704: 2657: 2546: 2401: 2352: 2319: 1771: 1646: 871: 812: 676:

for wikipedia there's some "trivia" cruft in a "Trivia" section, while on the

623: 528: 467: 427: 235: 80: 1986:

depends in great part on the amount of information that there is to transmit.

618:, usually regarding accuracy (so far). Once they figure out the magnitude of 2550: 2542: 1806:

At the moment we have a policy on criticism that is based on little bits of

1759: 1679: 1599: 1397:

with decent references to reliable published sources can be thrown out, per

921: 900: 866: 588: 519: 370:

has on some occasions been criticised for being unbalanced towards too many

197: 2481:#2: "WikiProject subpages - for project-specific templates, discussion, or 319:

article is presently no more than a "reception history" split-off from the

689:

deal with criticism in article text would attract unmanageable criticism.

3177:

to be a guideline. The funny thing is, they use "jossi" as an argument (

2156:

flaw, only sharpened the inconsistency between this proposal and WP:BLP.

1920:

I'm new to this discussion but not new to the issue as I have worked on

2642: 2292: 2009:

Everything to be sourced to verifiable and reliable sources, of course.

367: 324: 320: 137: 1153:

Modern Era)" or whatever is suitable for the subject being described.

1082:

Yes, criticism is messy, which is exactly why it should be quarantined

595:(and proponents of it) grow so overwhelming that a separate criticism 379:

of that composition fall under the "criticism" recommendations of the

1373:

states exactly that (note that it doesn't state that exclusively for

466:

already provides all what wee need to address criticism in articles.

231: 185: 1486:

in such top high profile article limiting oneself to 60kb? The rest

1412:) that make clear that it is about more than a "tiny minority view". 364:(note: all these trivia are "reception", but not really "criticism") 2582:

The creation of the draft page resulted from the discussion above (

1577:

On the contrary, giving administrators more "teeth", only leads to

1256:

In addition to all what has been said, note also the importance of

2076: 1243: 323:

article. The basic "summary style" idea has been followed in the

3209:

Knowledge:Avoid creeping instructions to avoid instruction creep

88: 3049:. I'm happy with it being an essay. See also the last quote at 2113: 2066:

Hey all. Recently (and yet again) the question has arisen on

189: 25: 1360:. Everything without a decent reference to a published & 2182:

be mentioned in the page intro than the "Notability" aspect.

1263:

there should be articles detailing arguments for and against

501:

representing a minority view as if it were the majority view

554:

Britannica, Encarta, World Book, etc, and this is obvious.

2196:

Use this talk page for change suggestions to the proposal;

506:

Remember that verifiability requires direct evidence from

907:, it should be included only as much as it is notable. — 891:

criticism in any article. We should simply be enforcing

84: 1470:

Still some guidance I'd like to draw your attention to:

3178: 3046: 3042: 3011: 3005: 1730:

Should we have sections with the title 'criticism(s)'"?

1552: 1549: 492:

WP:LIVING#Opinions_of_critics opponents and detractors

549:

Problems with advocating criticism in an encyclopedia

245:

his music, but that's not the same thing as it being

223:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Igor Stravinsky

3191:

more instructions, guidelines, rules and regulations

1467:

lead more often to disaster than the other approach.

1364:

can be thrown out. Please, I already pointed you to

1266:

yeah, but, as said above, if that makes the article

196:. The second proposal is also not a good idea IMHO, 1615:By what justification is this marked "inactive"? — 410:this proposed guideline can be written to actually 3232:Practical issues with the hypotheticals, citations 2531:. Not something that is recommended in general. -- 1445:Metropolitan Church of Art of Jesus the Conductor 1420:Metropolitan Church of Art of Jesus the Conductor 200:exists and should stay there. Just my 2 cents. -- 2586:). I still think it a good idea in this case. -- 2583: 1881:This makes no sense. Articles of criticisms are 1877:can advocate a different stance on the subject." 1535:most wikipedians don't follow them in practice 1427:connecting these two articles is for example: 1286:Was anything unclear about that? Also, in the 327:section. See also the talk I had with Mirv at 3241:very widespread notion that if you're on the 8: 3155:Basically, Smee, is that some of us want to 1734:(continued from above, comment as you like) 2148:since the former proposal was started, the 2922:Criticism section - apparent contradiction 1824:I agree with need a guideline, and I know 1529:Francis, you seem to misunderstand me. I 1499:or whatever that represents that type of 1222:P.S. How do I join this mailing list? -- 1634:Ya, we just discussed this. I'll rm it. 1015:about which people will have strong POVs 936:' anti-religious views in an article on 1802:We need a proper guideline on criticism 1170:giving the most forceful argumentation: 1176:Well, this calls for a rewrite of the 1105:following reasons, cars are very bad." 638:Knowledge's content is subject to the 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1280:to be integrated? I already explained 325:Tacitus#Studies and reception history 7: 3157:avoid instruction creep on Knowledge 2816:violation of a particular style. -- 1625:I dunno: we need to activate it. 1551:but it was immediately added back. 975:Serious problems with this proposal 1729: 1249:in the absence of such a section, 1060:The problems I've seen in practice 662:Representing issues from all sides 24: 3175:Knowledge:Avoid instruction creep 2485:" (my bolding). So rejecting the 2170:I think this page should move to 1895:or more the entire article) than 1676:Knowledge:Proportion and emphasis 1665:List of statements to be examined 1495:to its appropriate article (e.g. 1059: 3173:However, some people don't want 2426:I've moved the reverted text to 2343:My argument, Christian, is that 2291: 2033:Wikipedia_talk:List_of_POV_forks 1922:Criticism of the Catholic Church 1785:But, in general, a more neutral 1347:"true until proven false" policy 1235:How do I join this mailing list? 1156:Criticism sections in an article 29: 2936:Death and Resurrection of Jesus 2471:Knowledge talk:Criticism/Draft1 1294:* in the main article, etc). -- 1021:make an article a POV fork. -- 616:attack from other encyclopedias 1924:and, to a much lesser extent, 1775:14:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC) 1749:01:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC) 1739:20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 1713:15:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 1659:16:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 1639:15:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 1630:15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 1620:15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 1452:Homosexuality and Christianity 1441:Category:Esoteric Christianity 1125:Criticism in separate articles 1095:User A writes "Cars are good". 607:Knowledge is an encyclopedia. 445:What is confusing and how so? 1: 2473:is a redirect to this page). 1860:04:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 1559:You explained very well what 329:User:Mirv/Tacitus#More_issues 263:23:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC), see 3251:16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 3243:Theory that gravel is edible 3216:16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 3203:16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 3185:00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 3169:23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 3137:23:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 3121:22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 3112:22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 3092:22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 3079:22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 3064:21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 3051:Knowledge:Criticism#See also 3032:20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 2997:Time to label as "rejected"? 2989:22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2975:18:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2943:17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2904:20:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 2886:23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2852:17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2821:17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2795:17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2769:17:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2751:17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2724:17:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2713:16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2690:18:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 2680:04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 2624:02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 2591:13:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 2584:#Criticism sections and NPOV 2578:13:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 2536:13:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 2523:13:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 2494:12:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 2465:12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 2435:16:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 2410:18:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2379:17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2361:17:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2339:17:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2328:16:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2303:05:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 2262:12:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 2208:08:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 2141:; you made it even longer... 2125:15:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 2108:11:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 2093:08:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 2050:18:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 2040:17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 2023:17:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 1916:16:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 1905:23:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC) 1848:20:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 1819:09:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC) 1794:17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC) 1437:Category:Christian mysticism 1164:Knowledge:Criticism#See also 1052:17:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 945:18:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 912:17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC) 514:, or other generalizations. 2062:Criticism sections and NPOV 1789:section would be better. — 1603:05:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1511:Knowledge:Three revert rule 1086:In my experience, articles 1011:Knowledge:List of POV forks 750:efficient market hypothesis 652:Another important point is 3266: 2982:Knowledge:Criticism/Draft1 2734:Knowledge:Criticism/Draft1 2428:Knowledge:Criticism/Draft1 1678:, which in turn points to 1586:08:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 1572:02:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 1563:happen. But I'm saying it 1387:wikipedia:reliable sources 627:16:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 541:17:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 480:16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 450:17:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 440:23:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 396:13:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 336:13:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 297:10:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 286:15:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 208:11:08, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) 192:" look like? They're both 152:08:00, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) 95:07:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) 2400:". It is all there, IMO. 1725:them. As a first point... 1548:). I tried to remove it, 1531:completely agree with you 1522:15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 1339:20:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 1299:16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 1227:15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 1212:15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 1185:09:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 1132:Knowledge:Content forking 1118:22:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC) 1077:23:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 1026:01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC) 1003:08:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC) 993:03:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 970:17:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 754:chemical imbalance theory 358:talk:Salome#The Dubliners 272:19:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 265:Igor_Stravinsky#Criticism 238:12:50, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) 115:07:46, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) 107:07:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) 2422:New Draft for discussion 2316:WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone 2137:the former proposal was 1357:Verifiability, not truth 875:21:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 848:18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 816:23:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC) 740:Re NPOV, topics such as 703:18:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 253:02:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) 174:08:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) 18:Knowledge talk:Criticism 2986:Christian Edward Gruber 2883:Christian Edward Gruber 2818:Christian Edward Gruber 2792:Christian Edward Gruber 2766:Christian Edward Gruber 2721:Christian Edward Gruber 2621:Christian Edward Gruber 2529:Argumentum ad Radiantem 2487:Argumentum ad Radiantem 2432:Christian Edward Gruber 2376:Christian Edward Gruber 2336:Christian Edward Gruber 2259:Christian Edward Gruber 2122:Christian Edward Gruber 2090:Christian Edward Gruber 2031:, and join the Talk at 1474:Knowledge:summary style 1371:Knowledge:Verifiability 1366:Knowledge:Verifiability 1352:Knowledge:Verifiability 1258:Knowledge:Verifiability 1240:Knowledge:Mailing lists 216:23:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) 120:Repetition of criticism 3127:status. We shall see. 1480:Knowledge:article size 1407: 1285: 1253:becomes a troll magnet 1175: 1139: 341:Reception history and 198:criticism of copyright 3012:Proposed to guideline 1997:Roman Catholic Church 1872:The essay says this: 1433:Category:Christianity 1402: 1393:again. Further, even 1281: 1244:The WikiEN-l Archives 1171: 1135: 758:global warming theory 656:Neutral Point Of View 353:wikipedia talk:Trivia 277:Additions to proposal 79:How do you criticize 42:of past discussions. 2665:WP:NPOV#Undue weight 2549:, both of which are 1926:Criticism of Judaism 1399:WP:NPOV#Undue weight 916:I think Knowledge's 640:Verifiability policy 512:guilt by association 188:" and "Criticism of 1995:Long articles like 1507:Knowledge:Consensus 1395:tiny minority views 1178:Knowledge:Criticism 742:theory of evolution 381:wikipedia:criticism 2648:Inconvenient Truth 2475:Knowledge:subpages 2174:("MoS") while the 1755:literary criticism 1680:Space and balance; 1492:tiny minority view 1251:the entire article 1195:the entire article 574:Pedophile activism 362:talk:Salome#Trivia 3201: 3167: 3135: 3110: 3077: 3043:14 September 2006 3030: 3020:flog a dead horse 2973: 2902: 2850: 2749: 2711: 2408: 2359: 2326: 2068:Talk:Bahá'í Faith 2029:separate articles 1868:Separate articles 1766:has been used as 1657: 953:Topical criticism 670:Benjamin Franklin 539: 478: 438: 194:featured articles 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3257: 3197: 3182:Francis Schonken 3163: 3131: 3106: 3073: 3061:Francis Schonken 3026: 3008:, March 28, 2005 2969: 2898: 2846: 2745: 2707: 2588:Francis Schonken 2574: 2572: 2570: 2568: 2566: 2533:Francis Schonken 2519: 2517: 2515: 2513: 2511: 2491:Francis Schonken 2483:guidelines pages 2461: 2459: 2457: 2455: 2453: 2404: 2355: 2322: 2300: 2295: 2289: 2205:Francis Schonken 2118:Fox News Channel 1857: 1649: 1583:Francis Schonken 1519:Francis Schonken 1458:(and similarly: 1410:reliable sources 1296:Francis Schonken 1182:Francis Schonken 1023:Antaeus Feldspar 887:We shouldn't be 700:Francis Schonken 531: 508:reliable sources 494:where it reads: 470: 430: 393:Francis Schonken 333:Francis Schonken 317:Tacitean studies 283:Francis Schonken 251:Markalexander100 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3265: 3264: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3237:lazy reader... 3234: 2999: 2924: 2697: 2564: 2562: 2560: 2558: 2556: 2509: 2507: 2505: 2503: 2501: 2451: 2449: 2447: 2445: 2443: 2424: 2298: 2285: 2100:Mozilla Firefox 2064: 1870: 1855: 1804: 1732: 1667: 1613: 1594:I believe that 1362:reliable source 1084: 1062: 1009:people over at 977: 955: 934:Richard Dawkins 746:big bang theory 567:Igor Stravinsky 551: 403: 346: 313: 305: 279: 259:posted here by 226: 181: 168:Igor Stravinsky 146:Washington Post 122: 101: 77: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3263: 3261: 3248:Ethan Mitchell 3233: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3213:Ethan Mitchell 3205: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3096: 3095: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3055: 3054: 3016: 3015: 3009: 2998: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2923: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2727: 2726: 2696: 2693: 2673:Talk:Juan Cole 2654:global warming 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2423: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2281:the guidelines 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2250: 2246: 2243: 2239: 2236: 2233: 2229: 2226: 2223: 2201: 2200: 2197: 2190: 2189: 2186: 2183: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2157: 2146: 2142: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2063: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1879: 1878: 1869: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1803: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1731: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1721: 1720: 1705: 1704: 1700: 1697: 1694: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1666: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1612: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1589: 1588: 1542:social justice 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1504: 1477: 1468: 1448: 1416: 1413: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1302: 1301: 1276:who said they 1274: 1271: 1264: 1261: 1254: 1247: 1236: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1188: 1187: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1150: 1143: 1140: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1107: 1106: 1102: 1099: 1096: 1083: 1080: 1061: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1039: 1035: 1029: 1028: 976: 973: 954: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 905:George W. Bush 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 841: 833: 821: 820: 819: 818: 806: 805: 804: 803: 792: 791: 790: 789: 782: 781: 780: 779: 772: 771: 770: 769: 735: 734: 733: 732: 726: 725: 724: 723: 716: 715: 714: 713: 692: 691: 690: 650: 633: 550: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 526: 525: 524: 516: 515: 505: 504: 485: 484: 483: 482: 402: 399: 389: 388: 365: 355: 345: 339: 312: 309: 304: 301: 300: 299: 278: 275: 257: 256: 255: 254: 225: 219: 218: 217: 180: 179:Uncriticizable 177: 176: 175: 162: 161: 129: 128: 121: 118: 117: 116: 105:Samuel Wantman 100: 97: 76: 75:Uncriticizable 73: 70: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3262: 3253: 3252: 3249: 3244: 3238: 3231: 3217: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3183: 3179: 3176: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3125: 3124: 3122: 3119: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3093: 3090: 3086: 3085: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3062: 3057: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3013: 3010: 3007: 3006:Creation date 3004: 3003: 3002: 2996: 2990: 2987: 2983: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2941: 2937: 2931: 2929: 2921: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2884: 2879: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2822: 2819: 2814: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2796: 2793: 2788: 2787: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2770: 2767: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2735: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2725: 2722: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2701: 2694: 2692: 2691: 2688: 2682: 2681: 2678: 2677:MARussellPESE 2674: 2670: 2666: 2661: 2659: 2655: 2650: 2649: 2644: 2625: 2622: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2592: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2576: 2575: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2521: 2520: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2477:describes as 2476: 2472: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2463: 2462: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2433: 2429: 2421: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2380: 2377: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2337: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2304: 2301: 2294: 2290: 2288: 2282: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2263: 2260: 2256: 2251: 2247: 2244: 2240: 2237: 2234: 2230: 2227: 2224: 2220: 2219: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2206: 2198: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2187: 2184: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2158: 2154: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2140: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2126: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2106: 2101: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2091: 2085: 2081: 2078: 2074: 2069: 2061: 2051: 2048: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2021: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1998: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1914: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1903: 1898: 1893: 1888: 1884: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1867: 1861: 1858: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1834: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1801: 1795: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1776: 1773: 1769: 1768:carte blanche 1765: 1761: 1756: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1747: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1737: 1723: 1722: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1711: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1637: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1618: 1610: 1604: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1587: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1557: 1554: 1553: 1550: 1547: 1543: 1538: 1536: 1532: 1523: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1502: 1498: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1478: 1475: 1472: 1471: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1414: 1411: 1406: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1358: 1353: 1349: 1346: 1345: 1340: 1337: 1332: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1318: 1314: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1300: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1284: 1279: 1275: 1272: 1269: 1265: 1262: 1259: 1255: 1252: 1248: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1234: 1233: 1228: 1225: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1213: 1210: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1196: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1186: 1183: 1179: 1174: 1169: 1165: 1160: 1155: 1154: 1151: 1148: 1144: 1141: 1138: 1133: 1129: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1116: 1111: 1103: 1100: 1097: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1089: 1081: 1079: 1078: 1075: 1070: 1066: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1040: 1036: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1027: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1001: 995: 994: 991: 985: 981: 974: 972: 971: 968: 964: 960: 952: 946: 943: 939: 935: 931: 927: 923: 919: 915: 914: 913: 910: 906: 902: 898: 894: 890: 886: 885: 876: 873: 868: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 849: 846: 845:FeloniousMonk 842: 838: 834: 831: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 817: 814: 810: 809: 808: 807: 800: 796: 795: 794: 793: 786: 785: 784: 783: 776: 775: 774: 773: 767: 763: 762:Adolph Hitler 759: 755: 751: 747: 743: 739: 738: 737: 736: 730: 729: 728: 727: 720: 719: 718: 717: 711: 706: 705: 704: 701: 697: 693: 688: 684: 679: 675: 671: 667: 666:Franz Mesmers 663: 659: 658:(NPOV) policy 657: 651: 648: 647:of the source 646: 641: 637: 636: 634: 631: 630: 629: 628: 625: 621: 617: 612: 608: 604: 600: 598: 594: 590: 585: 581: 579: 578:Adolph Hitler 575: 570: 568: 563: 559: 555: 548: 542: 538: 534: 530: 527: 523: 521: 513: 509: 502: 496: 495: 493: 489: 488: 487: 486: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 452: 451: 448: 444: 443: 442: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 408: 401:This proposal 400: 398: 397: 394: 386: 382: 378: 373: 369: 366: 363: 359: 356: 354: 351: 350: 349: 344: 340: 338: 337: 334: 330: 326: 322: 318: 310: 308: 302: 298: 295: 290: 289: 288: 287: 284: 276: 274: 273: 270: 266: 262: 252: 248: 244: 240: 239: 237: 233: 228: 227: 224: 220: 215: 211: 210: 209: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 178: 173: 169: 164: 163: 159: 155: 154: 153: 151: 147: 141: 139: 133: 127: 124: 123: 119: 114: 110: 109: 108: 106: 99:Two proposals 98: 96: 94: 90: 86: 82: 74: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3239: 3235: 3038: 3017: 3000: 2940:Shirahadasha 2932: 2928:Christianity 2925: 2891: 2812: 2785: 2784: 2783:Also, there 2738: 2702: 2698: 2683: 2662: 2646: 2640: 2555: 2500: 2482: 2479:Allowed uses 2442: 2425: 2313: 2286: 2202: 2191: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2152: 2138: 2131: 2086: 2082: 2073:Christianity 2065: 1896: 1892:main article 1891: 1886: 1882: 1880: 1871: 1832: 1805: 1786: 1733: 1706: 1668: 1614: 1564: 1560: 1558: 1555: 1539: 1534: 1530: 1528: 1514: 1500: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1429:Christianity 1424:Christianity 1415:Christianity 1409: 1403: 1394: 1390: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1355: 1354:) is clear: 1331:Christianity 1316: 1291: 1282: 1277: 1267: 1250: 1194: 1172: 1146: 1136: 1112: 1108: 1087: 1085: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1018: 1014: 996: 986: 982: 978: 956: 942:Shirahadasha 938:Christianity 930:Christianity 896: 888: 829: 766:nuclear bomb 709: 696:mailing list 695: 686: 682: 677: 673: 661: 655: 654:Knowledge's 644: 619: 613: 609: 605: 601: 596: 592: 586: 582: 571: 564: 560: 556: 552: 497: 411: 406: 404: 390: 384: 376: 371: 347: 314: 306: 292:introduced. 280: 258: 246: 242: 182: 157: 145: 142: 134: 130: 125: 102: 78: 60: 43: 37: 2732:I read the 2527:As I said, 2172:style guide 1703:statements. 1464:interesting 1242:(note also 1168:Jimbo Wales 1044:Yourmanstan 963:John Edward 926:Creationism 799:automobiles 778:guidelines. 649:is advised. 645:reliability 635:Note that: 83:, alphabet 36:This is an 3047:a week ago 3037:It was an 3014:March 2006 2813:definitely 2703:Beats me. 2695:Rationale? 2658:truthiness 2547:ad hominem 2037:Jason C.K. 1913:Jason C.K. 1753:Note that 1670:examined: 1579:wheel wars 1515:especially 1484:noteworhty 967:Dreadlocke 529:≈ jossi ≈ 468:≈ jossi ≈ 428:≈ jossi ≈ 377:authorship 81:basketball 3207:Time for 3195:≈ jossi ≈ 3161:≈ jossi ≈ 3129:≈ jossi ≈ 3104:≈ jossi ≈ 3071:≈ jossi ≈ 3024:≈ jossi ≈ 2967:≈ jossi ≈ 2896:≈ jossi ≈ 2844:≈ jossi ≈ 2743:≈ jossi ≈ 2705:≈ jossi ≈ 2551:fallacies 2543:straw man 2402:≈ jossi ≈ 2353:≈ jossi ≈ 2320:≈ jossi ≈ 1902:Stbalbach 1887:different 1791:Omegatron 1787:Reception 1760:Evolution 1647:≈ jossi ≈ 1617:Omegatron 1596:Nikodemos 1569:Nikodemos 1501:criticism 1456:criticism 1375:criticism 1336:Nikodemos 1292:summaries 1224:Nikodemos 1209:Nikodemos 1166:section, 1115:Nikodemos 922:Evolution 909:Omegatron 901:ice cream 889:mandating 867:Evolution 710:something 589:communism 520:Communism 385:avoidable 303:Reception 87:or color 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 2660:reign.) 2167:section. 2163:version; 2139:too long 2112:I blame 2105:Localzuk 1856:IronDuke 1836:contribs 1826:Marskell 1816:Localzuk 1736:Marskell 1636:Marskell 1611:Inactive 1391:on sight 1379:advocacy 1310:section. 897:opinions 683:positive 678:positive 674:negative 447:Hyacinth 294:Hyacinth 269:Hyacinth 261:Hyacinth 214:Hyacinth 172:Hyacinth 138:bicycles 2951:WP:NPOV 2878:WP:NPOV 2687:Richard 2671:. (See 2643:Al Gore 2545:and an 2349:WP:NPOV 2176:content 2103:style.- 2047:Richard 2020:Richard 1808:WP:NPOV 1764:WP:NPOV 1565:doesn't 1497:Laïcité 1383:sources 1088:without 1000:Merzbow 990:Merzbow 959:Mediums 918:WP:NPOV 893:WP:NPOV 837:WP:NPOV 597:article 593:section 460:WP:NPOV 416:WP:NPOV 368:BWV 565 321:Tacitus 311:Tacitus 158:doesn't 39:archive 3199:(talk) 3165:(talk) 3133:(talk) 3108:(talk) 3075:(talk) 3045:until 3028:(talk) 2971:(talk) 2963:WP:NOT 2900:(talk) 2892:always 2848:(talk) 2747:(talk) 2709:(talk) 2656:. Let 2406:(talk) 2398:WP:BLP 2357:(talk) 2345:WP:BLP 2324:(talk) 2287:Cuñado 2180:rather 2153:policy 2150:WP:BLP 1812:WP:WTA 1719:again. 1690:said." 1561:should 1460:trivia 1268:viable 1074:Gronky 687:how to 464:WP:NOT 424:WP:NOT 412:assist 372:Trivia 343:trivia 232:eulogy 186:Helium 150:Toytoy 113:Toytoy 93:Toytoy 3180:). -- 3041:from 3039:essay 2959:WP:OR 2557:: --> 2502:: --> 2444:: --> 2077:Islam 2035:? -- 1840:Sandy 1772:Joema 1746:Sandy 1710:Sandy 1627:Sandy 1317:never 1130:From 1017:does 895:when 872:Joema 813:Joema 797:E.g, 624:Joema 576:, or 407:helps 236:Lupin 221:From 202:Conti 16:< 3118:Smee 3089:Smee 2961:and 2955:WP:V 2739:help 2669:WP:V 2573:< 2518:< 2460:< 2347:and 2299:Talk 2116:and 2075:and 1897:that 1844:Talk 1830:talk 1810:and 1600:WGee 1546:here 1509:and 1405:not. 1377:and 1238:See 1048:talk 620:this 456:WP:V 422:and 420:WP:V 360:and 315:The 243:like 89:blue 3022:. 2645:'s 2232:it. 2222:go. 2188:etc 2114:CNN 1900:-- 1883:not 1488:has 1278:had 1147:POV 1019:not 928:or 924:or 247:bad 190:Tea 3211:? 3159:. 3123:. 2984:-- 2965:. 2957:, 2953:, 2790:-- 2786:is 2553:. 2489:-- 2374:-- 2318:. 2296:- 2283:. 2257:-- 2203:-- 2045:-- 2018:-- 1911:-- 1846:) 1653:• 1503:). 1443:→ 1439:→ 1435:→ 1431:→ 1050:) 764:, 756:, 752:, 748:, 744:, 660:. 535:• 474:• 462:, 458:, 434:• 426:. 418:, 391:-- 267:. 3094:. 2571:t 2569:n 2567:a 2565:i 2563:d 2561:a 2559:R 2516:t 2514:n 2512:a 2510:i 2508:d 2506:a 2504:R 2458:t 2456:n 2454:a 2452:i 2450:d 2448:a 2446:R 1842:( 1833:· 1828:( 1655:@ 1651:t 1447:. 1401:: 1246:) 1134:: 1046:( 832:" 828:" 537:@ 533:t 476:@ 472:t 436:@ 432:t 206:✉ 204:| 85:Q 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Criticism/Archive 1 - Knowledge

Index